Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 22:30

Update 2--Edwards Wins MD-04: The Washington Post has projected Donna Edwards as the winner in the Democratic primary for Maryland's 4th congressional district! Yes, yes, yes! I'm going to sign off for the night now, and provide updated pledged delegate and popular vote totals in the morning. Congratulations to everyone!

Update--Huge night for progressive movement: With every precinct coming in with at least a 10% improvement for Edwards over 2006, let me reiterate this point: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in the first progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years. This it it. This is what we have been working for and building for. This is our emerging majority. We finally have the organization, and the voters, and the whole ball of wax. The movement has thoroughly come of age.

Especially at Virginia. I had a gut sense that the race was tightening in the last few days, but wow! I thought 15-17% was the number, but +29%?? That's not far from the +32% Obama got in his homestate of Illinois.

Clinton better be competitive in Wisconsin & Hawaii, or March 4 won't save her. She's down 100+ in pledged delegates and sinking fast. (The March 4 states have a total of 370 pledged delegates, and it's hard to see her winning 65/35.)

His speech had an anti-NAFTA statement, a more general anti-free trade statement, a shout out or two to working families. Combine that with the announcement that he's making a big policy speech at GM in MI tomorrow and I'm thinking Obama has ponied up the goods for Edwards' endorsement.

Makes sense to me. I thought Obama made some subtle yet significant changes in his usual speech (more appealing to working class). More importantly, I just don't see how it makes sense for Edwards to endorse Clinton. Especially after tonight. Some of the exit polling was pretty dramatic.

Yeah, but I think his main point is that his dig at NAFTA, a major "accomplishment" of the Clinton administration, and something of which Hillary has been supportive, is not only a dig at her, but also a reference to JRE's many stump speeches about free trade, and against NAFTA.

"It is possible that it is part of a larger, anti-incumbent trend," said Jennifer Palmieri of the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank based in Washington. "If, in fact, she prevails, it will be the combination of the Edwards and Obama message of change that would have put her over the top.

"Barack Obama and a good challenger can be a deadly combination for incumbents."

Seems highly dubious, at best. Getting endorsed by the Washington Post is indicative of how Edwards has strengthened her position quite independently of what's happening with Obama. And Wynn has done everything imaginable to try to wrap himself in Obama's mantle.

So, not impressed.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Or are you merely noting down in a binder somewhere the relative merits of Obama's coat-tails in another race you plan on advising?

I mean really, this is an amazing win, no, set of wins. An amazing night.

Heres the real message:

Get ready to help Obama win the general, on the issues you want to organize around. That gives pressure from now, on the day the oath is taken, and for the midterms. This is about us, Yes We Can. Reform, Change from the bottom up. Help the democrats win on your organizing on the issues you want brought forward: single payer, out now, democracy and corruption.

Yes We can.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

I first encountered Donna Edwards (not in person, but by phone) back in 1994, when I was organizing with the Coalition Against PBS Censorship on behalf of Defending Our Lives, the Oscar-winning documentary on women imprisoned for killing their batterers.

At the time it was made, there was still widespread ignorance and denial of how widespread and serious domestic violence was. And PBS refused to air it, just as PBS had refused to air a number of other Oscar-winning documentaries in the previous several years.

I was doing outreach to domestic violence organizers in all 50 states and DC, and Donna was one of the people I talked with--one of the most memorable. She was also involved in electoral reform work--another topic I was keenly interested in.

So, I definitely know that she's the real deal, and that was 14 years ago. A local metro daily certainly ought to know better by now.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

But we're talking about an article that pontificates about a single example, which has an incredible specificity to it, in terms of a broad generality, which, as far as I know, applies to no other examples--certainly not Mark Perra.

The technical term for that, where I come from is "talking out your ass."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

I agree that Gilchrest is one of the most moderate republicans in the house -- losing him is one more victory for the Club for Growth and the radical right

That said, it is conceivable that Harris could be beaten in the general election -- after a very divisive Republican primary, Kravotil is a good candidate, so it raises at least the remote possibility of a Democratic victory - and continues the forced exodus of sane Republicans into the Democratic party

Some claim to be, but they all have this weird switch in their heads that turns into blind obedience to the party line when called upon to actually make choices. I've seen it locally, and it's disturbing. Some of them even call themselves "Rockefeller Republicans."

None of them have any guts. But a gutless moderate Republican who follows his party is still better than a Right-winger who speaks out and actively pursues far-right policies.

Just like the Republican Party found it worth their time to keep Lieberman in office couldn't there be situations where it's worth working for a Republican just to keep the really bad people out? I haven't really figured this out for my self yet. But I think it's an idea the progressive movement ought to consider.

He is solidly against the war, votes pro-gay, pro-environment -- if there is such a thing as a moderate Republican, he is one.

That said, I'd take a Democrat any day -- but the reality is that if Gilchrest loses his primary, in such a strong Republican district, we have a good chance of seeing him replaced with a rightwing crazed Republican -- pro-war, wrong on all the economic and social issues, a completely loyal vote for the Republican leadership. Not an improvement unless we somehow manage to turn the seat Democratic

is overwhelming Democratic. CT is blue but not this blue. I can't imagine he would dream of trying to run. (I also don't know if the deadlines let him). Besides, he's got a bright future ahead of him as a corporate lobbyist!

Clinton did better in Montgomery County than in PG County. MoCo was widely considered the most secure part of the district for Edwards. She handily won MoCo in 2006--the difference is that this time she won PG too.

And I think it is highly minimizing of Donna's strengths to suggest that her victory is primarily a product of Obama coattails. In 2006, her campaign was not nearly as well organized or funded (she didn't even have an office in MoCo, which is nearly half the district), and she only lost by 2700 votes. She's been organizing and getting out the word for the last two years, well before Obama got into the mix.

These are the things that win elections. Big corporate money drowned us out for the longest time. But right now, putting a jar on the shelf, with Democrat on the label, and a dollar for every time you swear at the tube, half of every yard sale, and couple specific dollar parties. And you have a movement.

If 10% of us did that, all the Obamas and Edwards and Edwards of the land would be competitive every single race. We would always have at least two good candidates to choose from, like tonight.

The only difference between beach sand and a computer mother board is organizing.

\

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Jumping the shark meant going downhill, or losing what made the quality and popularity it initially had. Isn't OpenLeft's viewship going up? (I don't know where to check about this, as I am basing this off of the increasing number of comments. Could someone find some numbers to either back up or refute this claim?)

Bowers needs our love and admiration and donations. We have to make him rich or he'll be picked up by the majors.

Seriously, this some damn good research and writing.

And on a side note: jumping the shark for all you nerds, is that moment when you have noticed the person or show has descended so far into the ratings tank, that they will try anything to climb back, ie when you try to improve support by jumping a shark tank.

For example bring a little boy in costume out on stage with you to prove your demographic appropriateness.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Chris is an acquaintance of mine, so this was totally a joke, for the record (I'd love to call him a friend, but I would never be that presumptuous.). And yes, Chris does some damn good writing. In fact, a friend of ours described it as being of the school of James Joyce.

stop right there. thats not what jumping the shark means. it is not jumping a shark tank. Jumping the shark refers to a specific scene in a 1977 episode of the TV series Happy Days when Fonzie jumps over am actual shark while water skiing!

The combination of Edwards' increasing her lead, and the vote percentage now quickly rising means that Wynn is effectively toast. The rest of the figures would have to virtually reverse themselves for him to win, and that simply isn't going to happen.

It's over.

Edwards won.

We won.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

I don't know about you gals/girls, but this makes me very happy, especially in light of the defeat of Mark Pera last week. With this in line, perhaps some of the Bush Dogs (such as our favorite Majority Leader next door) will finally start to think twice before screwing their liberal constituents, especially with the FISA vote coming up.

I hope the fact that Barack Obama did not acknowledge in any way Al Wynn's endorsement, nor even wade into this primary fight is appreciated by Matt and others in the progressive blogosphere. Remember how devastating it was when Bill Clinton weighed in on the Connecticut fight on national television and undermined the Democratic nominee?

I remember talking to Matt for a very long time in Des Moines the night Barack won the caucuses (I think Matt described me as an "exuberant" supporter of Obama's on a post here), and one of the fundamental points I tried to make in Barack's favor was the fact that his candidacy would help us build progressive majorities to help further the Democratic agenda. I was pretty heartened to see Matt slowly coming along and going so far as to vote for Obama today in D.C. I hope this victory vindicates his vote in some way, and help him bury the nightmare of the Lamont-Lieberman race.

I just hadn't seen anyone other than Matt really acknowledge that. The funny thing is, Wynn originally backed John Edwards, so it was interesting trying to see him tie himself to Barack all of sudden when he knew he was in trouble.

Hopefully he for once sticks with the will of the American people, kind of a parting gift to those of us he so scorned for his lobbyist buddies, hopefully he votes for the candidate with the pledged delegate lead.

You see in his superdelegates, red staters. Why? Because they want to keep their jobs. Can you imagine just how many extra representatives, governors, mayors, state reps, state senators, and U.S. Senators, judges, etc. Obama will get elected because of his coattails? It is a fundamental shifting of those that control the country in small ways and large.

But the progressive movement has to prevent Hillary Clinton from stealing it, as just reported on MSNBC, she is planning on being 30-40 pledged delegates behind at the end of all voting for her BEST case scenario, and then arm twisting the superdelegates into stealing the nomination away.

The GOP is going to attack Obama as being inexperienced. Apparently they didn't see how Hillary did with that.

his campaign gets out the vote. with more dems going to the polls their is a positive down ticket effect for everyone in the Dem party. By contrast it is widely felt that Hillary will bring more Republicans out to the polls than otherwise might show up.

This site is the only one I read that frequently followed these crucial House primaries. I was afraid after the lipenski loss, and Kos' analysis of that loss today, that Edwards would be drowned out in a high turnout election for Obama, with voters just picking the incumbent.

I think the difference that's key here is that this is Donna's second go-round. She's had that much more time to build up name-id.

Matt and Chris and everybody who worked and donated to Donna Edwards. Great, great win tonight. I'm an Obama supporter, so I'm thrilled by his big wins, but Donna's win is if anything more satisfying, especially after Mark Pera's big loss last week.

It's moments like these when one realizes that this enormous mass of colliding self interests, the black box that we call the electoral process, can produce unambiguous results. Corporate shills can be ousted by up-front progressives. An Obama can win over millions of voters by representing something very vast and good. It's an odd feeling.

I think one of the greatest things about progressive politics is the kind of people we are. It's one of the big reasons why I'm not fond of Hillary and Bill Clinton, or Paul Begala or even Jerome Armstrong. When a sleazy, conflict-loving Congressman like Rahm Emmanuel or Chuck Schumer is one of your key surrogates, or when your television appearances and blog posts consist are mere vehicles for attacking an opponent, what does it say about you? What does it say about what you believe and how important it is, or should be to others? I've hung around with some of these 'political' types at conventions, at events, at bars after events. And generally they're not nice people, not the kind of people you'd want to see your children become. And one of the great things about the way this country feels like it's changing these days is that people like this - people who'll do and say anything to protect the power that they've managed to accrue - can and do lose to people who are getting involved for all the right reasons.

Anyway, thanks to you guys Chris and Matt, for making this your fight.

Which to me is more exciting and more fun than Christmas itself, but hey...

I wasn't a big player, but the excitement over Obama and equally as important future Congresswoman Donna Edwards can't be rivaled, not even by a big bucket of money. Congrats Matt, Chris. You guys, you "vast left-wing conspirators", you helped make this happen. Be proud, really.

Also, what a surprise, that good ole Virginny would give a greater margin of victory to Barack than steady blue Maryland.

BTW, I calc that Barack wins 54-29 in Virginia pledged delegates (incl. 19-10 in at large pledged delegates b/c he got more than 63.8% of the vote between Hillary and himself). He actually "underperformed" in NoVa (CDs 8, 10, 11) when it comes to delegates, but destroyed Hillary in CDs 1-5.

"Can you imagine just how many extra representatives, governors, mayors, state reps, state senators, and U.S. Senators, judges, etc. Obama will get elected because of his coattails? It is a fundamental shifting of those that control the country in small ways and large."

... with your analysis, Chris. Donna Edwards is a Democracy for America progressive. It's their efforts that are meaningful here. Obama is a corporatist, and the people he's bring into the primaries are independents and Republicans, who will drag the Democratic leadership FURTHER TO THE RIGHT.

One of the largest Blackroots organizations is ColorofChange, led by James Rucker, a 36-year-old former MoveOn official who helped stymie the proposed Fox News Democratic Presidential Debate last year. His group does not typically issue endorsements, favoring a focus on activism campaigns, but it made the first endorsement in its history to back Edwards. "We believe she embodies the accountability that citizens should come to expect from their elected representative," explained ColorofChange's Mervyn Marcano, who touted her positions on mortgage oversight, education and healthcare. "CBC incumbents should take notice of a Black electorate that is increasingly diverse and engaged. They no longer have a free pass. It's a new day for Black leadership in Washington and we're proud to have supported Donna throughout her campaign," he told The Nation.

Across the country, over 7,000 netroots activists donated $400,000 to Edwards via ActBlue, spurred by a diverse range of blogs, while labor, environmental and women's groups spent nearly $1 million backing her candidacy.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs...